Sorry, I certainly think that a high-quality voice that matches your
experience of english is better than a mechanical voice. But it is
almost always more expensive to produce (although you may have people
donate the effort). There are people who are used to a particular
version of english (including accent) and find that another accent is
very difficult to understand. If you get used to your speech system's
accent, it may be preferable to one that provides good modulation and
interpretation as one expects from a human speaker.
On the other hand when using speech to support understanding of text
because of difficulty with reading there is often more value in
high-quality speech than there is for people using speech synthesis to
overcome vision impairment. Thanks for reminding us of that
I guess I was thinking more in line with section 508 requirements
(which tend to ignore the needs of people who have difficulty in
reading such as those with learning and cognitive disabilities or Deaf
people who use a sign language as their first language) since the focus
suggested in the original mail of the thread seemed restricted to
helping people with visual disabilites.
cheers
Chaals
On Sunday, Feb 9, 2003, at 19:23 Australia/Melbourne, Jonathan Chetwynd
wrote:
> Ask children whether they prefer an audio tape by a well known and
> good reader, or a screen reader, and you have you answer.
>
> The assumption that a mechanical reproduction of a voice is superior,
> because the data is 'accessible' is misplaced. They are a separate and
> useful activity.
>
--
Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org
FundaciÃ³n SIDAR http://www.sidar.org